Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

To me, there's no way to provide a nature for something defined contra nature. To have a nature is to be part of nature. This is not a fallacy of equivocation as some mistakenly believe; (in fact ,it's a restatement of the axiom of identity) it an error to believe that 'having a nature' and 'being a part of nature' can be distinct concepts in the first place.

I think it's the belief that everyone makes it to heaven eventually.I used to accept it as a solution to the problem of evil, that everything all works out in the end. However, it doesn't explain why all the suffering is necessay to get there, and although God's plan might be beyond our understanding, why call him/his creation perfect if it doesn't match our idea of perfect, if we can imagine a way that it could've been better?

That challenge and suffering lead to a greater joy when it is overcome seems to make sense, but only in the context of our imperfect world where our options were limited. If it was possible to make that greater joy without the pains of the build-up then why not just go straight to it?

Our conceptions of good, bad, imperfect and perfect all seem to lose sense outside of their natural/realworld context.

it would seem that the concept of universalism would directly contradict the script of the rapture, and many other references in the bible. how can "all people eventually be saved" when god himself supposed killed, rather than "compassionately spared", millions of sinners? the supposed existence of a "hell" would seem to say that the idea of universalism has already failed.

What do you all think of this folks. Is it fair to say that universalism represent the true nature of God? How does Free Will Plays into this as well.

Well, universalism certainly makes more sense if your god claims to be all-loving. The Christian doctrine is really more one of jealous god.

But it kind of defeats the purpose of heaven and hell. Heaven and hell are meant like carrot and stick. Follow Jesus and you get the carrot, if you don't you get the stick. Churches don't like universalism, because well, it means to give up Pascal's Wager as an "argument" to believe.